The California Supreme
Court has agreed to decide whether state law pre-empts a Los Angeles city ordinance
requiring a purchaser of a large grocery store to retain the existing workforce
for 90 days.

The justices, at their
weekly conference in San Francisco, voted unanimously to grant review of the
July 30 decision in California Grocers Association v. Los Angeles Alliance
for a New Economy (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 51.
This week’s conference was held on Tuesday due to the Veteran’s Day holiday.

Div. Five of this
district’s Court of Appeal upheld Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ralph Dau’s
ruling that the city could not enact such an ordinance because the Legislature
has occupied the field by enacting the California Retail Food Code, subject to
specific exceptions in the code.

City officials urged the
high court to consider their contention that the ordinance, enacted in 2005,
falls within the code’s exception for health and safety regulations. They claim
that by requiring retention of the existing work force, they are guaranteeing that
employees familiar with procedures for safe handling of food products are on
hand to train their replacements during the transition.

The grocery operators
claim the law, which was enacted shortly after the announcement that the
Albertsons chain was being sold, was solely enacted as job-protection measure.
Dau and the Court of Appeal agreed, and also concluded that the National Labor
Relations Act pre-empts the ordinance—backed by organized labor and the Los
Angeles Alliance for a New Economy—because it allows unionized stores to
negotiate alternative arrangements through collective bargaining.

In other conference
action, the justices agreed to decide whether a trial judge, after conducting
an in camera hearing to determine whether the defense is entitled to receive
documents produced in response to a subpoena duces tecum under Penal Code Sec.
1326, may order that the hearing transcript be unsealed, thereby allowing the
prosecution to discover the documents even if the defense does not intend to
use them at trial. This district’s Div. Six said such an order is improper
absent “exceptional circumstances,” which were not found to exist in Kling
v. Superior Court (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 223.